Does setting a date to get troops out of Afghanistan mean the Taliban has won?
|
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
|18:00 - 19:00 GMT
Nato Troops could leave Afghanistan in 2014. The international community supports President Hamid Karzai's goal that Afghan forces should lead security operations across the country in four years time.
This article in the New York Times says one of the reasons why there is this new commitment is because countries who have troops there, acknowledged that neither the public in their own countries nor the Afghan people had much patience left.
The Western European democracies with the most troops in the country - Britain, France and Germany - are under great domestic pressure to reduce their presence, while the United States, which has by far the heaviest military presence, is hewing to a "conditions based" approach that allows its forces to slow any drawdowns in areas where the insurgency appears more tenacious or where Afghan troops and the police appear to have inadequate capabilities.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance will never allow the Taliban to topple the government of Afghanistan. But he said that transition to Afghan-led security would be based on "conditions, not calendars." The Canadians who also have troops in Afghanistan say :
"The latest conference on Afghanistan set 2014 as the date for the assumption of military control of the country by Afghans. It is an ambitious timetable, and one that will require defeat of, or reconciliation with, the Taliban. With defeat unlikely, Canada expressed support for reconciliation at the conference. Now Canada must make sure it stays around, training troops and maintaining an energetic presence, to help give effect to reconciliation."
Richard Barrett co-ordinator of the UN al-Qaida Taliban monitoring team says in today's Guardian argues:
Afghanistan is a mess that everyone wants cleared up - but the problem is how to do it. It is clear that the military option has not succeeded. June saw the greatest monthly loss of life among Nato troops since the beginning of the campaign, topping 100 for the first time, and so far 2010 has been twice as lethal for Nato forces as 2009. The Taliban, meanwhile, show no sign of flagging - and, sensing victory, their morale is high.
Gerald Warner blogs
We are watching history in the making in Afghanistan; but it is history of a certain stamp - the slow-motion unravelling of a disaster. He also says :
Here we have high-ranking international diplomats and foreign ministers, the supposed "movers and shakers" of the world, but they have encountered the immovable and the unshakeable: the victorious Taliban and the treacherous warlords of Afghanistan. Gerald Warner believes that behind Karzai's confident demeanour lies the uncomfortable reality that his recent back-door overtures to the Taliban have been contemptuously rejected. The same will happen to Nato: why should the Taliban negotiate the endgame to a war it has already won?
So does setting a date to get NATO troops out of Afghanistan mean the Taliban has won?
Fred on Facebook - I think we should not try to distinguish sides. we should concentrate on a unified force, a force non prejudicial. Lets be on the good side of the line, the side that thinks humanely not religiously or politically. I believe that we all want a break.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:26
113631290
Eddie on Facebook - I think Hamid Karzai Setting a date for Afghans to take over means that Hamid Karzai has won the war.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:21
113631290
Francis via email - The semantics of whether any action could or should be called defeat are immaterial. The proper question is will the plan or action really resolve or address the issues?
Comment sent via Facebook
18:19
113631290
Albert Gomperts on Facebook - The only way to pacify Afghanistan is currently unthinkable. It would entail getting Iran, the Central Asian republics, Pakistan and all other interested parties, Taliban and tribal to sit down together and hammer out an accord.
Comment sent via SMS
18:16
114379120
This is Sol in NY. It may very well mean the taliban has won, but we should get out being that a large portion of the people we are protecting and suppor
Comment sent via Facebook
18:17
113631290
Dee Kieft on Facebook - There isn't or never will be a winner in this conflict. Afganistan will always be a tribal society & has never been governable. Ask the Russians and Brits. Until the society becomes educated, including females and the literacy rates are improved, the country will remain a 3rd world impoverished corrupt hell hole.
Comment sent via BLOG
18:13
113631290
Deighton Barbados on the blog - There's an old saying "time is on our side" and I believe that may be the Taliban's motto. The only way the Taliban don't win is if the NATO troops stay in Afghanistan for ever and ever, Amen.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:12
113631290
Pancha Chandra on the blog - Setting a firm date of withdrawal does not mean the Taliban have won. But the question should be whether it is prudent to leave the Afghans in the lurch to fight their own battles.
Comment sent via BLOG
18:10
113631290
Crispo in Uganda on the blog - Anyone in their normal senses, who up till now, has followed this war right from its "forceful" inception, will remember that, everything went wrong from day one. Seriously, what were "they" going to fight in Afghanistan?
Comment sent via Facebook
18:08
113631290
Michael on Facebok - Hardly. Militarily this isn't an issue. The Taliban, etc are no match for US, but this isn't just a military conflict, its political. This is the price of new 'civil' conflicts. (The mughals, mongols, hans, germans, french, spanish, etc...didnt have these problems... they just took what they wanted and slaughtered everyone in their way). If conquest was the obvious goal then this wouldn't be an issue. The US may be the first world power that actually gave a damn about people...so its setting new precedent.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:07
113631290
Michael Caudill in Montana on Facebook - It provides a framework of mutual expectations for Karzai (and any future Afghan government) and NATO for the orderly transfer of power to the Afghani peoples-including the Taliban. It is a win-win-win if executed properly. If not... Naive me, I prefer optimism.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:06
113631290
Abdelilah in Marrakech on Facebook - After 9/11, the US was confident that it would wipe out the Al Qaida and the Taliban off the face of the earth. The Taliban suffered their biggest losses. But they managed to regenerate. In this war neither side has made a major breakthrough. The most beneficiary of this situation is the Afghan government whose members feel under NATO protection and reap millions, if not billions, of dollars, due to corruption and mismanagement.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:04
113631290
Mark Gibbs - IF (big 'if') the Afghan security forces and government have a grip on things, removing foreign troops will likely be a great help to any peace or reconciliation process. The mistake is in using terms such as 'won' or 'lost' - to suggest that anyone loses from a stable, peaceful Afghanistan is ridiculous.
Comment sent via Facebook
17:59
113631290
Rooble posted on facebook - Knowing the Soviet failed in its mission when it invaded Afghan some 30 years a go it was a BIG MISTAKE to do the same thing again now. The current government is seen as a puppet created by the western allies just like the one created by the Soviet at that time. Now taking those troops out of Afghanistan means a total defeat of NATO and Taliban will not stop until they remove the Afghan government.
Comment sent via host
17:54
113631290
We''re on air now - discussing whether the Taliban have won in Afghanistan. Have your say below.
Does setting a date to get troops out of Afghanistan mean the Taliban has won?
| Wednesday, 7 July 2010 | 18:00 - 19:00 GMT
Nato Troops could leave Afghanistan in 2014. The international community supports President Hamid Karzai's goal that Afghan forces should lead security operations across the country in four years time.
This article in the New York Times says one of the reasons why there is this new commitment is because countries who have troops there, acknowledged that neither the public in their own countries nor the Afghan people had much patience left.
The Western European democracies with the most troops in the country - Britain, France and Germany - are under great domestic pressure to reduce their presence, while the United States, which has by far the heaviest military presence, is hewing to a "conditions based" approach that allows its forces to slow any drawdowns in areas where the insurgency appears more tenacious or where Afghan troops and the police appear to have inadequate capabilities.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance will never allow the Taliban to topple the government of Afghanistan. But he said that transition to Afghan-led security would be based on "conditions, not calendars."
The Canadians who also have troops in Afghanistan say :
"The latest conference on Afghanistan set 2014 as the date for the assumption of military control of the country by Afghans. It is an ambitious timetable, and one that will require defeat of, or reconciliation with, the Taliban. With defeat unlikely, Canada expressed support for reconciliation at the conference. Now Canada must make sure it stays around, training troops and maintaining an energetic presence, to help give effect to reconciliation."
Richard Barrett co-ordinator of the UN al-Qaida Taliban monitoring team says in today's Guardian argues:
Afghanistan is a mess that everyone wants cleared up - but the problem is how to do it. It is clear that the military option has not succeeded. June saw the greatest monthly loss of life among Nato troops since the beginning of the campaign, topping 100 for the first time, and so far 2010 has been twice as lethal for Nato forces as 2009. The Taliban, meanwhile, show no sign of flagging - and, sensing victory, their morale is high.
Gerald Warner blogs
We are watching history in the making in Afghanistan; but it is history of a certain stamp - the slow-motion unravelling of a disaster. He also says :
Here we have high-ranking international diplomats and foreign ministers, the supposed "movers and shakers" of the world, but they have encountered the immovable and the unshakeable: the victorious Taliban and the treacherous warlords of Afghanistan.
Gerald Warner believes that behind Karzai's confident demeanour lies the uncomfortable reality that his recent back-door overtures to the Taliban have been contemptuously rejected. The same will happen to Nato: why should the Taliban negotiate the endgame to a war it has already won?
So does setting a date to get NATO troops out of Afghanistan mean the Taliban has won?
Your comments
Comment sent via Facebook
Fred on Facebook - I think we should not try to distinguish sides. we should concentrate on a unified force, a force non prejudicial. Lets be on the good side of the line, the side that thinks humanely not religiously or politically. I believe that we all want a break.
Comment sent via Facebook
Eddie on Facebook - I think Hamid Karzai Setting a date for Afghans to take over means that Hamid Karzai has won the war.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Francis via email - The semantics of whether any action could or should be called defeat are immaterial. The proper question is will the plan or action really resolve or address the issues?
Comment sent via Facebook
Albert Gomperts on Facebook - The only way to pacify Afghanistan is currently unthinkable. It would entail getting Iran, the Central Asian republics, Pakistan and all other interested parties, Taliban and tribal to sit down together and hammer out an accord.
Comment sent via SMS
This is Sol in NY. It may very well mean the taliban has won, but we should get out being that a large portion of the people we are protecting and suppor
Comment sent via Facebook
Dee Kieft on Facebook - There isn't or never will be a winner in this conflict. Afganistan will always be a tribal society & has never been governable. Ask the Russians and Brits. Until the society becomes educated, including females and the literacy rates are improved, the country will remain a 3rd world impoverished corrupt hell hole.
Comment sent via BLOG
Deighton Barbados on the blog - There's an old saying "time is on our side" and I believe that may be the Taliban's motto. The only way the Taliban don't win is if the NATO troops stay in Afghanistan for ever and ever, Amen.
Comment sent via Facebook
Pancha Chandra on the blog - Setting a firm date of withdrawal does not mean the Taliban have won. But the question should be whether it is prudent to leave the Afghans in the lurch to fight their own battles.
Comment sent via BLOG
Crispo in Uganda on the blog - Anyone in their normal senses, who up till now, has followed this war right from its "forceful" inception, will remember that, everything went wrong from day one. Seriously, what were "they" going to fight in Afghanistan?
Comment sent via Facebook
Michael on Facebok - Hardly. Militarily this isn't an issue. The Taliban, etc are no match for US, but this isn't just a military conflict, its political. This is the price of new 'civil' conflicts. (The mughals, mongols, hans, germans, french, spanish, etc...didnt have these problems... they just took what they wanted and slaughtered everyone in their way). If conquest was the obvious goal then this wouldn't be an issue. The US may be the first world power that actually gave a damn about people...so its setting new precedent.
Comment sent via Facebook
Michael Caudill in Montana on Facebook - It provides a framework of mutual expectations for Karzai (and any future Afghan government) and NATO for the orderly transfer of power to the Afghani peoples-including the Taliban. It is a win-win-win if executed properly. If not... Naive me, I prefer optimism.
Comment sent via Facebook
Abdelilah in Marrakech on Facebook - After 9/11, the US was confident that it would wipe out the Al Qaida and the Taliban off the face of the earth. The Taliban suffered their biggest losses. But they managed to regenerate. In this war neither side has made a major breakthrough. The most beneficiary of this situation is the Afghan government whose members feel under NATO protection and reap millions, if not billions, of dollars, due to corruption and mismanagement.
Comment sent via Facebook
Mark Gibbs - IF (big 'if') the Afghan security forces and government have a grip on things, removing foreign troops will likely be a great help to any peace or reconciliation process. The mistake is in using terms such as 'won' or 'lost' - to suggest that anyone loses from a stable, peaceful Afghanistan is ridiculous.
Comment sent via Facebook
Rooble posted on facebook - Knowing the Soviet failed in its mission when it invaded Afghan some 30 years a go it was a BIG MISTAKE to do the same thing again now. The current government is seen as a puppet created by the western allies just like the one created by the Soviet at that time. Now taking those troops out of Afghanistan means a total defeat of NATO and Taliban will not stop until they remove the Afghan government.
Comment sent via host
We''re on air now - discussing whether the Taliban have won in Afghanistan. Have your say below.